Child porn suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives

[zhero]

Again, the court of appeals feels that the contempt charge was justified.

nope, the appeals court still hasn't said anything, the article doesn't mention anything other then the attorney making a statement for them.

Except they have more than just a crackpot theory that he has child porn...they have forensic evidence and an eye witness.

they have one "witness" and someone with a statement no better than saying "yeah, its possible"

[Jaxsz]

Doesnt mean they have legal ground to force him to bear witness against himself.

Does show why you should always boobytrap your hard drives so they are easily physically destroyed if tampered with.

- - - Updated - - -



One could argue the conspiracy theory is coming from the court in this case.

He is not testifying against himself. No one is asking him to testify against himself. No one is saying he is being held in contempt because he isn't telling them where the evidence is located.

He is being held in contempt because they have evidence on hand, which a court has said they have a right to search, and he is refusing to allow them to search the evidence.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

nope, the appeals court still hasn't said anything, the article doesn't mention anything other then the attorney making a statement for them.

It also states:

The government successfully cited a 1789 law known as the All Writs Act to compel (PDF) the suspect to decrypt two hard drives it believes contain child pornography.

[zhero]

It also states:

that wasn't to the appeals court.

[Elim Garak]

He is being held in contempt because they have evidence on hand, which a court has said they have a right to search, and he is refusing to allow them to search the evidence.

He's not refusing them to search. In fact they have already searched. Hence why they know about the encryption. He is not required to help them in any way.

[Saradain]

It's not about what any of us think, it's about what the law says and what the court thinks. The law says (and the court agrees, and has upheld in the court of appeals) that he has to grant them access to the hard drives. If he refuses this court order, he is in contempt of court.

What you're actually arguing is that you believe the law should change, which is a reasonable stance. It's not reasonable to claim this persons constitutional rights are being violated etc, since they are not, and everything occurring here is completely legal... and reasonable.

I don't know US law, but I was under the idea that people are only obligated to help the law enforcement if it does not self-incriminate those people. One could say that you are arguing about the interpretation of the law, that he should help himself to his doom, which kinda is testifying against himself, albeit not in a court, not with words, but with doing the police job for the police. You are arguing if his refusal to unlock the data is a matter of obstructing justice - even all that happens after the warranted search, so he was not doing anything to prevent them from searching.

[Starscream101]

They had enough evidence to get a search warrant based on their freenet investigation. Do you think a judge would sign off on a warrant based solely on "he uses freenet"?

They have Search warrants all ready singed with no address and names on them with judges names all ready on them so the police can just do what they want.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

He's not refusing them to search. In fact they have already searched. Hence why they know about the encryption. He is not required to help them in any way.

That is up to the determination of the court. Courts have ruled in favour of both sides.
What needs to happen is for the matter to go before the Supreme Court.

[Jaxsz]

He's not refusing them to search. In fact they have already searched. Hence why they know about the encryption. He is not required to help them in any way.

In your opinion - not, you know, legally.

[Elim Garak]

Constitution drumpfs laws.

[Zantos]

They had enough evidence to get a search warrant based on their freenet investigation. Do you think a judge would sign off on a warrant based solely on "he uses freenet"?

Umm, that is kinda exactly what happened. They saw him on that network, and whatever he was doing got the warrant that started this investigation.

[Jaxsz]

I don't know US law, but I was under the idea that people are only obligated to help the law enforcement if it does not self-incriminate those people. One could say that you are arguing about the interpretation of the law, that he should help himself to his doom, which kinda is testifying against himself, albeit not in a court, not with words, but with doing the police job for the police.

Essentially you're saying if a search warrant is issued, a person is not required to allow law enforcement to enter the premises since this is "self incriminating."

That isn't the case at all. A person isn't required to testify against themselves, but they ARE required to allow access to locations when a search warrant is issued. The debate now is whether allowing access to encrypted hard drives falls under the same laws - which the court thinks it does - and the supreme court will likely have to rule on eventually.

Again, you have to look at this hard drive in the same way as you'd look at a locked door in a house. If law enforcement has a warrant to search inside this room, the person is required to grant them access. In the same way, he's required to grant them access to this hard drive.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Umm, that is kinda exactly what happened. They saw him on that network, and whatever he was doing got the warrant that started this investigation.

Actually the investigation into freenet was already ongoing and apparently they had sufficient reason to believe that "Whatever he was doing" was downloading Child pornography. We don't actually know what the evidence itself is....but it was enough to get a warrant.

[Kellhound]

Again, the court of appeals feels that the contempt charge was justified.

Yet the SCOTUS has commented that there is a difference between being forced to hand over a key to a lockbox and being compelled to reveal the combination to a wall safe.

[The Stormbringer]

Essentially you're saying if a search warrant is issued, a person is not required to allow law enforcement to enter the premises since this is "self incriminating."

That isn't the case at all. A person isn't required to testify against themselves, but they ARE required to allow access to locations when a search warrant is issued. The debate now is whether allowing access to encrypted hard drives falls under the same laws - which the court thinks it does - and the supreme court will likely have to rule on eventually.

Again, you have to look at this hard drive in the same way as you'd look at a locked door in a house. If law enforcement has a warrant to search inside this room, the person is required to grant them access. In the same way, he's required to grant them access to this hard drive.

They have access to the hard drive. What they don't have is the encryption key to understand what's on it.

Imagine if instead of child pornography, he has been charged with having a series of letters detailing his many illicit and illegal activities with children. These letters are (supposedly) contained in a safe. He gives the police access to the safe, and it has letters in it. The letters are written in a highly complicated code, and they can't make out heads or tails what it is. Do they then have the right to demand the cipher for this code, despite not having any evidence that what is in the letters is what they think it is?

[Elim Garak]

Hard drives is not a room, nice try though.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Constitution drumpfs laws.

The question is whether or not decrypting hard drives falls under 5th amendment protection. In the past it has been ruled that it does and it also has been ruled that it does not.

[Kellhound]

Except they have more than just a crackpot theory that he has child porn...they have forensic evidence and an eye witness.

No, they have an eyewitness, and not much else really. The "forensic evidence" is marginal at best.

[Jaxsz]

Hard drives is not a room, nice try though.

Legally it isn't much different, and the courts seem to keep agreeing! Nice try though.

- - - Updated - - -

They have access to the hard drive. What they don't have is the encryption key to understand what's on it.

Imagine if instead of child pornography, he has been charged with having a series of letters detailing his many illicit and illegal activities with children. These letters are (supposedly) contained in a safe. He gives the police access to the safe, and it has letters in it. The letters are written in a highly complicated code, and they can't make out heads or tails what it is. Do they then have the right to demand the cipher for this code, despite not having any evidence that what is in the letters is what they think it is?

No, in this case they are just requesting access to the safe - and he has to provide that if they somehow can't brute force into it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yet the SCOTUS has commented that there is a difference between being forced to hand over a key to a lockbox and being compelled to reveal the combination to a wall safe.

SCOTUS has never addressed the issue of compelled decryption.